On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:13, Seth wrote:

Sorry.

This is what I get when i type ifconfig (I'm not getting any ip address now):

No you certainly aren't. There appear to be a few packets flowing but not many, probably just dhcp requests. Shutdown suse firewall if you are running it. Check your physical connections (wires, etc). Then open two shell windows (as root). In one, type tail -f /var/log/messages In the other: ifdowm eth0 followed by ifup-dhcp eth0 And watch the results. What kind of nic is that anyway? I can't get a match on that mac address in any database. It almost seems like you have a dribble connection, where a few packets get through but not enough for a connection. Often this happens with 10/100 nics that don't negotiate very well. (3com)

eth0 Link encap: Ethernet HWaddr 00:CO:4F:60:12:82 inet6 addr: fe80:2c0:4fff:fe60:1282/64 Scope: Link UP Broadcast NOTRAILERS RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric: 1 RX packets: 8494 errors:0 dropped: 0 overruns: 0 frame:0 TX packests:27 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes 522786 (510.5 kb) TX bytes: 1285 (12.b kb) Interrupt: 11 Base address:0xdc00

lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:3496 (3.4 Kb) TX bytes:3496 (3.5 Kb)

When I type route I get:

Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo

--Seth

On 7/30/06, John Andersen wrote:

...

On Saturday 29 July 2006 20:31, Seth wrote:

...

However, when I type ifconfig in the console, it gives me an ip address.

And what IP is that?

What happens when you type route?

A little specificity wouldn't hurt.

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

this is what I get when I type ifdown eth0: eth0 device: 3Com Corporation 3c905b 100BaseTX (Cyclone) etho0 configuration: eth-id-oo:C0:4f:60:12:82 and when i type ifup-dhcp eth0 I get: Starting DHCP Client Daemon on eth0. . . . . no ip address yet. . . . backgrounding This is what I'm getting when I type route: July 30 02.22.06 Cinderella syslog-ng [4685]:STATS:dropped 0 July 30 13:15:09 Cinderella dhcpcd [7741]: terminating on single 15 July 30 13:15:09 Cinderella dhcpcd-hook: Skipping 'ifdown $INTERFACE -o dhcp' call July 30 13:15:15 Cinderella kernel:ACPI:PCI interrupt 0000:00:11.0[A] --> GSI 11 (level, low) --> IRQ 11 July 30 13:15:25 Cinderella kernel:eth0: no IPv6 routers present July 30 14:10:11 dhcpcd[8730]:terminating on single 15 The physical connections look good. I've tried with a cable I know works, and I get the same problem. --Seth On 7/30/06, Jerry Feldman wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:29:37 -0800 John Andersen wrote:

...

On Saturday 29 July 2006 21:13, Seth wrote:

...

Sorry.

This is what I get when i type ifconfig (I'm not getting any ip address now):

No you certainly aren't. There appear to be a few packets flowing but not many, probably just dhcp requests.

Shutdown suse firewall if you are running it. Check your physical connections (wires, etc).

Then open two shell windows (as root). In one, type tail -f /var/log/messages In the other: ifdowm eth0 followed by ifup-dhcp eth0

And watch the results.

What kind of nic is that anyway? I can't get a match on that mac address in any database. It almost seems like you have a dribble connection, where a few packets get through but not enough for a connection.

Often this happens with 10/100 nics that don't negotiate very well. (3com) Also, while it could be your NIC, double check your cables. We recently had a problem with a server in our lab. This was an HP DL140 with 2 NICS. We even put in a third NIC. The cable to the panel was fine. The patch panel looked ok, but we decided to move the cable to another position and it worked fine.

-- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

It's plugged into a 100 meg port into a hub. I've also tried plugging it directly into the Motorola SURFboard(r) Cable Modem SB4200, but it doesn't help. --Seth On 7/30/06, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 30 July 2006 10:33, Seth wrote:

...

3Com Corporation 3c905b 100BaseTX (Cyclone)

Well there you go.

This has all the earmarkings of the Classic 3com dribble connection. 3com has a horrible reputation for failure to auto-negotiate speed and duplex settings with upstream devices.

Is this plugged into a 10 meg port or a 100 meg port on the upstream device?

Can you try a different upstream device, as a test. Or put something between this machine and what ever is upstream. such as a hub or switch to test if that works?

There is a way to tell the nic ahead of time what rate to select, but I forget the details.

My normal response upon being given ANY problem by a 3com nic is to listen for the Plonk sound it makes when it hits the bottom of the trash can.

Nics are under $10 these days and unless you are 50 miles from the nearest replacement I wouldn't waste any more time with it.

-- _____________________________________ John Andersen

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:33:48 -0400 Seth wrote:

this is what I get when I type ifdown eth0:

eth0 device: 3Com Corporation 3c905b 100BaseTX (Cyclone) etho0 configuration: eth-id-oo:C0:4f:60:12:82

and when i type ifup-dhcp eth0 I get:

Starting DHCP Client Daemon on eth0. . . . . no ip address yet. . . . backgrounding

This is what I'm getting when I type route:

July 30 02.22.06 Cinderella syslog-ng [4685]:STATS:dropped 0 July 30 13:15:09 Cinderella dhcpcd [7741]: terminating on single 15 July 30 13:15:09 Cinderella dhcpcd-hook: Skipping 'ifdown $INTERFACE -o dhcp' call July 30 13:15:15 Cinderella kernel:ACPI:PCI interrupt 0000:00:11.0[A] --> GSI 11 (level, low) --> IRQ 11 July 30 13:15:25 Cinderella kernel:eth0: no IPv6 routers present July 30 14:10:11 dhcpcd[8730]:terminating on single 15

The physical connections look good. I've tried with a cable I know works, and I get the same problem. I would suggest that you assign a static IP address. You can do this with ifconfig: ifconfig eth0 <address> Your router should be set for 192.168.1.n where 1 < n < 100. Usually routers use 100 to 254 for dynamic. The see if it works. Piong either something on your subnet or external. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

On 30/07/06 21:41, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 30 July 2006 15:56, Jerry Feldman wrote:

...

...

The physical connections look good. I've tried with a cable I know works, and I get the same problem.

I would suggest that you assign a static IP address. You can do this with ifconfig: ifconfig eth0 <address> Your router should be set for 192.168.1.n where 1 < n < 100. Usually routers use 100 to 254 for dynamic. The see if it works. Piong either something on your subnet or external.

What are you talking about?

I just talked him out of using a static. It masks the problem of no connectivity by letting you THINK you've got connectivity when you DON'T.

What are *you* talking about? The only way to determine if you have connectivity is to actually try to connect to something. Failing a DHCP request attempt tells you no more about the problems of your network than failing a ping, or an attempt to connect to some server. Only the raw rookie would think he had connectivity simply because he has an IP, but forgot it was assigned statically.

In his first post He was convinced he had connectivity because he had an IP. Turned out he manually assigned it. When he printed his iwconfig outout it was clear not a single packet had passed and he had no connectivity at all. Its a hardware problem.

People who recommend assigning manual IPs on network segments that have a working dhcp server don't know what they are doing. Its not a good way to solve problems. Its deceptive, and disruptive to other users on the subnet. Its unnecessary, and does not solve a cabling problem, or a dribble connection, or a switch problem.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On 31/07/06 01:30, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 30 July 2006 23:20, Darryl Gregorash wrote:

...

What are *you* talking about? The only way to determine if you have connectivity is to actually try to connect to something. Failing a DHCP request attempt tells you no more about the problems of your network than failing a ping, or an attempt to connect to some server. Only the raw rookie would think he had connectivity simply because he has an IP, but forgot it was assigned statically.

The OP already admitted to being a raw wookie. Perhaps you would like to throw a few more insults his way.

Further, if you had bothered to follow the thread you would have seen he already manually assigned an ip and that was still unable to ping.

You are now recommending he run in circles.

I made no recommendations whatsoever. I only pointed out that using DHCP over a static IP has nothing to do with the solution to this problem, contrary to what you inferred in you response to Jerry Feldman. I threw no insults in any direction. I only pointed out that neither DHCP nor a static IP were of any relevance in resolving the problem, contrary to what you inferred. Finally, I have been following the thread, noting that over 500KB had been received on the HIC, while less than 20KB had been transmitted. This, in your response to Jerry, became "not a single packet", but I do not know just what packets you might mean by that. -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Sunday 30 July 2006 11:41 pm, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 30 July 2006 15:56, Jerry Feldman wrote:

...

...

The physical connections look good. I've tried with a cable I know works, and I get the same problem.

I would suggest that you assign a static IP address. You can do this with ifconfig: ifconfig eth0 <address> Your router should be set for 192.168.1.n where 1 < n < 100. Usually routers use 100 to 254 for dynamic. The see if it works. Piong either something on your subnet or external.

What are you talking about?

I just talked him out of using a static. It masks the problem of no connectivity by letting you THINK you've got connectivity when you DON'T.

In his first post He was convinced he had connectivity because he had an IP. Turned out he manually assigned it. When he printed his iwconfig outout it was clear not a single packet had passed and he had no connectivity at all. Its a hardware problem. I think you may be confused. He is not on a wireless. In any case, I do agree that Seth probably has a hardware problem with his NIC. I also specified that he ping something on his subnet, since his routing table looked to be correct.

-- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com